Laserfiche WebLink
<br />case, the Board cannot proceed to conduct a F,cznng en tl;e reinstated NOV the next <br />day, March 22, 2001 as requested by Basin (Motion at :). Because DMG has vacated <br />the NOV, any decision by the Boazd to require DMG to reinstate rite NOV' rs a new <br />action, requiring tkat the Board follow the 30 day non:: requittmrnt established in <br />the Colorado Administrative procedures Act, § 24-4-105, C.1ZS, or at least the five <br />day notice requirencnt established in the Act, § 34-33-12a(b), C.RS. prior to <br />COt]al1c:L'1P'_3:L l:~Z ..^.b. <br />date importantly, Basi-t Resources nasno standing to coatest this 1vOV <br />vacation, and the Board therefore should deny the motion. DMG is the administrative <br />a¢rncy charged wtitt~ enforcing the Acc and the Rules. § 34-33-123, C.P_S. 'T'he <br />Boazd is an appcllatc administrative body ctarged with reviewing DMG enforcement <br />actions. § 34-33-124, C.RS. When requested by someone who has been "adverscly <br />affected" by eca] minin; operations, DMG's mtut conduct an inspection and <br />therea.~ter institute appropriate enf'orcemez:t, tf warra-ttcd § 3433-12?f7), C.R.S. aad <br />Rule 5.02.5 Here, Ms. Tatum, the Landowner apparently adversely a$ccted by <br />continuing subsidrnce, requested the inspection, DMG inspected, and based on iv1s. <br />Tatum's representations of continuing subsidencc•related dama¢e, the ? 997 court <br />Wiling in James and Ann Tatum v Basin Resources, Inc., NO. 92 CV' 127 (D.Ct., Cy <br />of Las Animas, Dec. ! , 1997) is favor of the TatturLS reg2rdi.Zg subsidrnce-related <br />damaee znd the rccrnt U. S. Department of the I:tterio: Board of Land Appeals <br />(IBLAi decisions to the same e:fcct, Jim and .Ann 7atum,i51 TBLA 286, 30b-30'' <br />(January =, %000) and Jim and Ann Tctum (On Reconsideranonl, TBLA 95-90R and <br />96-9i R !July ?6.2000) , D'vIG issued the ~iOV. <br />